The Bottom Line
- Central Bank Involvement is Not a Blank Cheque: Simply having a state’s central bank facilitate a financial transaction, such as a cash shipment, does not automatically shield the assets from seizure if they are not legally the central bank’s “property” under international law.
- High Bar for Reclaiming Seized Assets: Dutch courts give significant deference to prosecutors in anti-money laundering (AML) cases. To reclaim seized assets, companies must prove it is “highly unlikely” a criminal court would ultimately order forfeiture, a very difficult standard to meet while an investigation is active.
- Cross-Border Logistics Under Scrutiny: This case serves as a stark reminder for financial institutions that their international cash transport routes and documentation must be robust enough to withstand intense scrutiny from AML authorities in transit jurisdictions.
The Details
In a long-running legal saga, the Advocate General (AG) of the Dutch Supreme Court has advised the court to uphold the seizure of €19.5 million in cash belonging to three Surinamese commercial banks. The cash was seized by Dutch authorities at Schiphol Airport in 2018 while in transit from Suriname to Hong Kong. The core of the banks’ argument has been that the seizure was illegal because the shipment was arranged by the Central Bank of Suriname, which should enjoy sovereign immunity under international customary law.
The AG’s opinion dismantles this immunity argument by focusing on a critical distinction: the definition of “property.” According to the AG, and in line with previous Supreme Court rulings in this case, state immunity only protects assets that are considered the “property of the central bank” and are used for official monetary purposes. Here, the cash was undisputedly owned by the three private commercial banks, not the Central Bank of Suriname. The Central Bank’s role, while essential for the transaction to occur, was deemed merely “facilitating.” It acted as the “shipper” on the paperwork but did not own or exercise sufficient control over the funds to extend its sovereign protection to them.
Furthermore, the AG confirmed that the underlying suspicion of money laundering, which triggered the seizure, remains valid enough to justify holding the funds. The prosecution pointed to several red flags, including the large volume of high-denomination bills, an unusual shipping route, and the origin of a significant portion of the cash from local currency exchange offices (cambios). Given these factors, the AG concluded that it cannot be considered “highly unlikely” that a criminal court would eventually order the forfeiture of the funds. This reinforces the strength of the prosecution’s position during an ongoing investigation and highlights the significant challenge businesses face in contesting AML-related asset seizures.
Source: Parket bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
